User:RD/9k/commodity (Bordigism) (Q42,80)
Main entry[edit]
commodity (Bordigism)
-> I feel like this needs its own entry because I'm not entirely sure what specific things Bordiga is taking commodity to mean. let's see here
A) commodities have exchange value. this is bad for some reason. B) you have to take away the precise exchange values between commodities to have properly created Bolshevism. (that sounds... kind of correct, except - when do you think the mono-structure is actually created then? do you not think the mono-structure was created starting in 1917?)
Related[edit]
Commodity production suggests enslavement
/ any existence of a mass of commodities suggests ... If in the past there was commodity production ... it was not because the labour-power was sold "voluntarily" as it is today, but rather because it was squeezed by force of arms (Bordiga) [1] -> the claim that because Bolshevism produces a particular quantity of commodities, it is not basically different from capitalism and it has not created a period of socialism. this is terribly un-molecularized, and just gross frankly. now I do like this form of argument better than what Trotsky and Zinoviev were doing in the 1930s but, oh boy.
I think this falls apart immediately when you start imagining it applying to Black people. say Malcom X founds a Communist party and it somehow realizes itself into a functioning Social-Philosophical-Material System (a union republic, a free-floating molecular population with state businesses people can be part of or not, a whatever). BlackPantherism starts going through socialist transition and abolishing the gaps that characterize capitalism to create a mono-structure. then a Bordigist shows up and says, this isn't socialism, this is just state capitalism whether I want to use that term or not. if you'd put up with this in ancient times you would have been slaves. will the Bordigist get through saying this with a straight face? I feel like the Black Panther allies have a good idea what being slaves is and whether they're being exploited right now or whether they've made a reasonable sacrifice to be free from the utter abject horrors of structural racism they'd be facing if they didn't create... the thing they just created, the countable named Marxism. it really isn't about whether you like "state capitalism" or not, it's about the survival consequences to your material population of not doing it within a world of empires and chunk competition.
Commodity production destroys socialism
/ Every system of commodity production is a non-socialist system, as we have affirmed in various texts (Bordiga) [2] -> is it? that does not sound correct.
Lenin talks about the concept of "to each according to his work", which boils down to a lesser version of markets or commodities. so like.... isn't socialism inherently the stage where you haven't gotten away from commodity production yet? at least at the start? I don't think this is correct. this seems kind of like one of those "let's attack state capitalism as not socialism" arguments. it seems a lot like what Hayashi was claiming really, I don't see much difference.
Ideology codes[edit]
- (none)